I suggest that we are thieves in a way. If I take
anything that I do not need for my own immediate use, and keep it, I thieve it from
somebody else. I venture to suggest that it is the fundamental law of Nature, without
exception, that Nature produces enough for our wants from day to day, and if only
every-body took enough for himself and nothing more, there would be no pauperism in this
world, there would be no man dying of starvation in this world. But so long as we have got
this inequality, so long we are thieving. I am no socialist and I do not want to
dispossess those who have got possessions: but I do say that, personally, those of us who
want to see light out of darkness have to follow this rule. I do not want to dispossess
anybody. I should then be departing from the rule of ahimsa. If somebody else possesses
more than I do, let him. But so far as my own life has to be regulated, I do say that I
dare not possess anything which I do not want. In India we have got three millions of
people having to be satisfied with one meal a day, and that meal consisting of a chapati
containing no fat in it, and a pinch of salt. You and I have no right to anything that we
really have until these three millions are clothed and fed better. You and I, who ought to
know better, must adjust our wants, and even undergo voluntary starvation in order that
they may be nursed, fed and clothed.

If all men realized the obligation of service (as an
eternal moral law), they would regard it as a sin to amass wealth; and then, there would
be no inequalities of wealth and consequently no famine or starvation.

Non-possession is allied to non-stealing. A thing not
originally stolen must nevertheless be classified stolen property, if one possesses it
without needing it. Possession implies provision for the future. A seeker after Truth, a
follower of a Law of Love cannot hold anything against tomorrow. God never stores for the
morrow; He never creates more than what is strictly needed for the moment. If therefore,
we repose faith in His providence, we should rest assured, that He will give us everything
that we requ8ire. Saints and devotees, who have lived in such faith, have always derived a
justification for it from their experience. Our ignorance or negligence of the Divine Law,
which gives to man from day to day his daily bread and no more, has given rise to
inequalities with al the miseries attendant upon them. The rich have a superfluous store
of things which they do not need, and which are therefore neglected and wasted, while
millions are starved to death for want of sustenance. If each retained possession only of
what he needed, no one would be in want, and all would live in contentment. As it is, the
rich are discontented no less than the poor. The poor man would fain become a millionaire,
and the millionaire a multimillionaire. The rich should take the initiative in
dispossession with a view to a universal diffusion of the spirit of contentment. If ony
they keep their own property within moderate limits, the starving will be easily fed, and
will learn the lesson of contentment along with the rich.

What was best was that nobody should possess more than
he could himself use. That was the ideal society should strive to reach.

No one has ever suggested that grinding pauperism can
lead to anything else than moral degradation. Every human being has a right to live and
therefore to find the wherewithal to feed himself and where necessary, to clothe and house
himself. But for this very simple performance we need no assistance from economists or
their laws.

Take no thought for the morrow is an
injunction which finds an echo in almost all the religious scriptures of the world. In
well-ordered society the securing of ones livelihood should be and is found to be
the easiest thing in the world. Indeed, the test of orderliness in a country is not the
number of millionaires it owns, but the absence of starvation among its masses. The only
statement that has to be examined is, whether it can be laid down as a law of universal
application that material advancement means moral progress.

Now let us take a few illustrations. Rome suffered a
moral fall when it attained high material affluence. So did Egypt and so perhaps most
countries of which we have any historical record. The descendants and kinsmen of the royal
and divine Krishna too fell when they were rolling in riches. We do not deny to the
Rockefellers and the Carnegies possession of an ordinary measure of morality but we gladly
judge them indulgently. I mean that we do not even expect them to satisfy the highest
standard of morality. With them material gain has not necessarily meant moral gain. In
South Africa, where I had the privilege of associating with thousands of our countryman on
most intimate terms, I observed almost invariably that the greater the possession of
riches, the greater was their moral turpitude. Our rich men, to say the least, did not
advance the moral struggle of passive resistance as did the poor. The rich mens
sense of self-respect was not so much injured as that of the poorest. If I were not afraid
of t4reading on dangerous ground, I would even come nearer home and show how that
possession of riches has been a hindrance to real growth. I venture to think that the
scriptures of the world are far safer and sounder treatises on laws of economics than many
of the modern text-books.

My ideal is equal distribution, but so far as I can see,
it is not to be realized. I therefore work for equitable distribution.

Economic equality is the master key to non-violent
independence. Working for economic equality means abolishing the eternal conflict between
capital and labour. It means the levelling down of the few rich in whose hands is
concentrated the bulk of the nations wealth on the one hand, and a levelling up of
the semi-starved naked millions on the other. A non-violent system of government is
clearly an impossibility so long as the wide gulf between the rich and the hungry millions
persists. The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the miserable hovels of the
poor, labouring class cannot last one day in a free India in which the poor will enjoy the
same power as the richest in the land. A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty
one-day unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and power that riches give and
sharing them for the common good. I adhere to my doctrine of trusteeship in spite of the
ridicule that has been poured upon it. It is true that it is difficult to reach. So is
non-violence difficult to attain. But we made up our minds in 1920 to negotiate that steep
ascent.

The real implication of equal distribution is that each
man shall have the wherewithal to supply all his natural wants and no more. For example,
if one man has a weak digestion and requires only a pound, both should be in a position to
satisfy their wants. To bring this ideal into being the entire social order has got to be
reconstructed. A society based on non-violence cannot nature any other ideal. We may not
perhaps be able to realize the goal, but we must bear it in mind and work unceasingly to
near it. To the same extent as we progress towards our goal we near it. To the same extent
as we progress towards our goal we shall find contentment and happiness, and to that
extent too, shall we have contributed and happiness, and to that extent too, shall we have
contributed towards the bringing into being of a non-violent society.

Now let us consider how equal distribution can be
brought about through non-violence. The first step towards it is for him who has made this
ideal part of his being to bring about the necessary changes in his personal life. He
would reduce his wants to a minimum, bearing in mind the poverty of India. His earnings
would be free of dishonesty. The desire for speculation would be renounced. His habitation
would be in keeping with his new mode of life. There would be self-restraint exercised in
every sphere of life. When he has done all that is possible to preach this ideal among his
associates and neighbours.

Indeed at the root of this doctrine of equal
distribution must lie that of the trusteeship of the wealthy for superfluous wealth
possessed by them. For according to the doctrine they may not possess a rupee more than
their neighbours. How is this to be brought about? Non-violently? Or should the wealthy be
dispossessed of their possessions? To do this we would naturally have to resort to
violence. This violent action cannot benefit society. Society will be the poorer, for it
will lose the gifts of a man who knows how to accumulate wealth. Therefore non-violent way
is evidently superior. The rich man will be left in possession of his personal needs and
will act as a trustee for the remainder to be uses for the society. In this argument,
honesty on the part of the trustee is assumed.

If however, in spite of the utmost effort, the rich do
not become guardians of the poor in the true sense of the term and the latter are more and
more crushed and die of hunger, what is to be done? In trying to find out the solution of
this riddle I have lighted on non-violent non co-operation and civil disobedience as the
right and infallible means. The rich cannot accumulate wealth without the co-operation of
the poor in society. If this knowledge were to penetrate to and spread amongst the poor,
they would become strong and would learn how to free themselves which have brought them to
the verge of starvation.